I am getting the impression that this thread has just about run its course. The original question was about unyielding hard-heads in the various debates, lawyers were mentioned, and it ended in a solicitation for some thoughts. We've had plenty.
I appreciate all you have said, and the way you have said it. It was a nice, refreshing change for me, personally, and I thank you for it.
Let me close this off by encouraging the same style and forebearance in our ensuing discussions, whatever they may be. We'll cross swords again, but maybe we can do it with a bit of a wink and some good will, and try the private attempt at reconciliation when things become stalled or when they seem to want to get louder.
Please also remember to place your mental prowess, such as had been gifted to you when you chose your parents, to work on the substance of the topic, the facts that are offered, and to leave the person taking the opposing view out of the mix. Be gracious and allow entry to facts that you know are probably "good" unless you have facts that clearly contradict what has been presented already. When there doesn't seem to be a way to settle it, a polite and kind word of acknowledgement for the other person's contribution will go a long way...and then you can get onto something else more promising.
Lastly, I am no stupe...I know we'll occasionally have a bad hair day....so please don't get your own face in the way...just call us using the "Report Abuse" link at the bottom right of every post's text box. Even if it isn't abuse, but you are hoping for a way through or around something before it gets ugly, let us know and we'll try to help everyone out.
I also would like to encourage private contact with me using the pm or email links if you would like...I don't mind, and will likely get back to you before the hour is up most times. It is my hope, in return, that you won't be upset with me when I contact you privately on the odd occasion and offer a suggestion, or even ask, "What's going on?" I promise not to do it more often than my good sense leads me to.
I hope you can still feel comfortable here and call it your on-line home.
Sincerely,
-Crandell
quote user="edw"
Poppa_Zit,
I am not opposed to "edgy humor" or even "dirty jokes", if told in the proper forum (pun intended). That was one of the points I made in my first post ... venue affects everything.
Jeez... I re-read your first post and don't see that point made at all. Just that silly experiment thing you're now trying to re-spin.
Sure, shock jocks push the envelope with their humor, but what you seem reluctant to acknowledge is that there actually is an "envelope", and that the envelope on the public airwaves has a finite boundary.
The "envelope" isn't as simple as you paint it. Who draws the line for the "envelope"? Not the government, because that would violate the First Amendment. Shock jocks only know they've crossed the imaginary line when the FCC hands out fines after many complaints.
Actually, the way the broadcasting industry works is the "envelope" is different in different markets. That's why if you do more research you'll discover that while the FCC does investigate multiple complaints of offensive material -- most of the time it does nothing.
The key words in an FCC obscenity or indecency case are "patently offensive". What is acceptable in New York City may be "patently offensive" in a Bible Belt small market. But the radio business is self-policing. If advertisers do not want to be associated with a station's format, the station will soon be forced to find a format acceptable in that market -- or go out of business.
Don Imus didn't get fired for doing what he was paid to do. He was fired for going way beyond the bounds of propriety.
Nope. Again, radio ain't art. He got fired because his show's advertisers felt the heat of the PC Army and its threatened boycott, so they reacted by threatening to drop their advertising. In total panic, CBS knee-jerked to criticism from those who have anointed themselves as the public conscience and canceled the show. If such a ruckus wasn't raised, he'd still be on the air. ***Please note the FCC did nothing to penalize Imus or CBS, by the way, because what he said was neither obscene nor indecent.
Keep in mind that we are talking about public airways which are owned by all the people, not just the "edgy" ones. The rules of behavior on the public airwaves are subject to regulation by the FCC which ultimately derives its authority from the people through Congress.
Right. But you're forgetting it works both ways. The FCC is empowered by Congress to regulate just about everything in the broadcast business -- except content. That would violate the First Amendment, and the legendary battles between radio stations and the FCC can be found with a search engine. If the FCC decided to censor the airwaves, it would violate the rights of the "edgy ones", to use your term.
To bring this discussion back to the issue of PC, I think that Imus's career bio actually undermines your original argument that he was purely a victim of PC run amok. How many times has he been fired in 40 years? Once that I'm aware of. That is inconsistent with your argument that PC is such a pervasive force in our society. Apparently, even the envelope on the public airways is pretty broad.
Do your homework before making statements. Imus has been fired several times, all for his crude humor. But on the other hand, his crude humor drew high ratings and got him hired for each successive job. (To keep this trains-related, did you know when he began his radio career, Don Imus was a brakeman for the Southern Pacific?)
As a result, your supposition that PC is not a force in society is incorrect -- he's made a lucrative career by being politically incorrect. And obviously, from his ratings and longevity, a lot of people like his act.
In fact, last summer Imus hired prominent attorney Martin Garbus to pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit against CBS for the remaining $40 million on his five-year contract. Imus sued because the contract contained a clause indicating CBS hired and supported Imus to exhibit "irreverent" and "controversial" programming. How more clear could his job description be?
And, Imus himself has acknowledged that his comment that led to his firing last year was "was completely inappropriate" and "thoughtless and stupid".
In the light of the hubbub, what would you expect him to say?
By all accounts he appears sincere when he says the experience has turned his life around, and he has pledged never to make hurtful comments like that again.
Only time will tell. He's back on the air since early December on ABC Radio. But consider Imus won three Marconi Awards, two for Major Market Personality of the Year (1992 and 1997) and one for Network Syndicated Personality (1994). He was named one of the 25 Most Influential People in America in Time magazine (April 21, 1997). And he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1989. In 2002, Talkers magazine ranked Imus as one of the greatest radio talk show hosts of all time.
He's also made millions for his bosses. Which is the goal of radio execs.
Poppa_Zit, your comment that I seem to be easily offended implies that you did not find Imus's remark to be offensive. Is that actually your position?
My comment implies nothing. How would my position be relative to this discourse?
My dog in this fight is that I don't like seeing the PC crowd going on witch hunts or attempting to throttle anyone's First Amendment rights or ruin someone's career. Complaining about Imus's 40 years of radio schtick is like going out and buying a book of dirty jokes and then complaining to your neighbors about it being offensive. People who tune into Imus fully understand what they're going to get.
You've made some general statements about Imus that show me you've never listened to him in his 40 years -- you're cherry-picking one incident. You didn't even know there are others, did you?
So, while most people, including Imus, seem to agree that his comment was inappropriate, and went too far, why do you, Poppa_Zit continue to assert that his firing was, to use your words, "totally PC run amok"?
Because it is. Again, after the thermonuclear umbrage cleared, what would you expect Imus to say?
Also, please show us some resource that confirms your "most people" claim, which seems to be Argumentum ad populum. Was it really "most people", or was it actually "most people who publicly wanted to appear to be PC when polled"?
I have a brother and a daughter who have to learn everything the hard way.
But, learn they do.
Eventually.
keydiverfla wrote: Some people just have their head fully inserted into their own rectum and MUST profess that they are right and everyone else is stupid.Am I off topic now? LOL
Some people just have their head fully inserted into their own rectum and MUST profess that they are right and everyone else is stupid.
Am I off topic now? LOL
Ive had a few trainees like that long time ago. I just stand clear of danger and wait for the smash that will teach them to learn to listen.
Railway Man wrote: I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate.
I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate.
You need not be a moderate to be a good moderator. Just fair-minded, and strong enough to temper your own biases.
Good food for thought, though. Took some new UMs to keep everyone civil.
Chico
Railway Man wrote: eolafan wrote: gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.Eolafan:I don't know anyone who DOES like political correctness run amok. Or anything run amok. Especially mobs, dogs, hogs, and someone else's children. Am I correct in inferring that what really bothers you is that you don't like the outcomes of the forum? Well, sometimes I don't either. But as I pay nothing for the privileges this forum provides -- education, entertainment, sharing with friends -- I am in no position to enforce any complaint I might have with the management. I have complete freedom of choice: if I find the whims of the management insufferable I can take my "business" elsewhere. I expect if I did this little world will go on happily without me, as it should.I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate. Some of the people on here couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion. But even they are not useless as they establish a bad example. If I want to be liked, I'll call my dog; if I want rewards, I'll call my clients; if I want agreement with my boneheaded opinions, I'll call my competitors. RWM
eolafan wrote: gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.
gabe wrote:Is it just me, or are we on something . . .
Nope, it's not you Gabe, we ARE onto something here. I am gratified that I am not the only one who dislikes political correctness run amok.
Eolafan:
I don't know anyone who DOES like political correctness run amok. Or anything run amok. Especially mobs, dogs, hogs, and someone else's children.
Am I correct in inferring that what really bothers you is that you don't like the outcomes of the forum? Well, sometimes I don't either. But as I pay nothing for the privileges this forum provides -- education, entertainment, sharing with friends -- I am in no position to enforce any complaint I might have with the management. I have complete freedom of choice: if I find the whims of the management insufferable I can take my "business" elsewhere. I expect if I did this little world will go on happily without me, as it should.
I'm not cut out to be a moderator, because I'm not a moderate. Some of the people on here couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion. But even they are not useless as they establish a bad example. If I want to be liked, I'll call my dog; if I want rewards, I'll call my clients; if I want agreement with my boneheaded opinions, I'll call my competitors.
RWM
Love of Trains: the cost of my addition to buying IC HO model railroad roling stock, despite my inability to find room for it.
Trains subscription: $24.00 (and worth every penny).
Reading--and planning to plagarize--the last line of this post: priceless.
Gabe
No, you are actually somewhat on subject.
erikthered wrote: ... as you are finding out, You Can't Please All The People All The Time.Erik
... as you are finding out, You Can't Please All The People All The Time.
Erik
Yes, that much I know, Erik. BTW, congratulations for getting the one non-traumatizing letter when your submission was accepted. The others could not have been uplifting by your account.
Selector, it's great that you actually take enough interest in the mechanics of photography to comment on them. How you comment on them may or may not be politically correct, or even polite. But it's better than sending a picture off to TRAINS that you believe is the best thing since sliced bread was first marketed, and getting back a form rejection two weeks later.
(It's also a real adrenaline rush to get back a letter saying it's been accepted, too- and icing on the cake to cash the check that goes with it.)
The point is this: It's not what you say, but how you say it. The simple rejection form is heartless, cruel, cold, unhelpful and I'm pretty sure I will be traumatized for life because of it. But it's a short, brief memo from an overworked Photo Editor, who doesn't have the time to personally give his comments on the shot. And I imagine I really don't want to hear what he's really saying- "Who sent me this piece of human excrement? Why is he wasting my time, his film, and a railroad's good will by this? Give him the standard reject! I'm going to sign it with an exclamation point!"
Same thing applies of these forums. I've successfully managed to hack off at least three engineers, one lawyer, and a Constant Gentle Reader by asking questions or drawing conclusions that were too far out there to even attempt a reality connection. Fortunately for me, they have all managed to respond politely- or even with the TRAINS standard rejection notice, which is cruel, heartless, and just plain mean spirited. It's rude and socially unacceptable and I have hidden mine deep in a file cabinet, because just looking at them causes me to sob uncontrollably.
I don't envy you the volunteer job you took on, and for your own sanity, I would Moderate with the same cruel, insensitive, hand that the Evil Photographic Editor has. Oh yeah, he might be married and his dog loves him- BUT- he doesn't explain why he does what he does.
Better to live being considered arbitrary and unfair than ask for approval for every act you take- because, as you are finding out, You Can't Please All The People All The Time.
tatans wrote:Just what is the response when a person submits a photo of a layout and it's horrible, you know it, I know it and the builder knows it. Do you praise them as you would a small child??? or tell them it REALLY needs some work, I guess tell them it's a start and offer some helpful suggestions and alternatives, I had an art instructor in watercolor tell me my trees were wrong then he proceeded to show me the correct way, I was appreciative and did not take offence in any way, I guess this is diplomacy eh??? As far as comments go either respond with your point of view in an unsarcastic manner and hope it's taken in context. This forum is one of the most intelligent posts I have read (along with "how to make large areas of forest cover)
Tatans, you are still batting 1000!! I think this could be a highly illustrative question.
I can't say there is a "correct" way, or even a (gag) PC way to do it. I can tell you what I have done and what works for me most of the time.
First, when we read black on white, each of us has to form an impression, a vision, and to make sense of what the words mean. That process relies heavily on the filters in our limbic systems, the centres in our brain that deal with emotions. Have you ever smelled something in the air and a flood of memories comes back at you, something about being in Grandma's house, or in your old basement, maybe a hospital where you had a good or bad experience? That is your limbic system working. It does the same thing when you read words here. But, unlike the addition of smells, people's expressions when they are talking to you, ambient sounds, and so on, all there is here is the written word. There is a lot of whirring and clicking going on between our ears when we read and post on this forum, and the brain struggles to place things in context. Sometimes it renders a misattribution, or a misapprehension...in other words, an error. That much is resident totally in the reader of the words.
On the other hand, the writer of those words has to hope, or ought to have the good will and positive regard, to ensure that the reader understands. So, that part of the responsibility for communication is resident wholely with the writer. Quite a daunting responsibility when you understand how powerful the message can be in mere words, and nothing else but how they look (and read) on the computer screen.
Now, to your question: Few people post excellent images, either in composition or in subject. But my way of "wanting" to give the person due positive regard is to try hard to notice the one or more things that are apparently done well. Then, I comment on that. I go back and figure out what peeves me about the presentation or the subject, and I suggest to the person that there is a way to improve it...and I stress, in words, that I recognize that my observations may not be welcome. This is a message that I am sensitive to his feelings, and that my object, and desire, is that he thinks only about my message and does not take offense....none is intended.
I then finish my post with words of encouragement, summarizing my overall appreciation for the person's courage in posting (who among us feels perfectly confident in our imagery or subject...remember, I am a modeller) and encouraging his eye to see what I see. The rest is up to the presenter of the image.
Politeness, gentleness, patience, they cover a huge multitude of defects in my experience, and they will soothe fragile personalities that could end up being towering figures in a field if given a chance. If you don't know his history, the life's story of Isaac Newton is an eye-opener. His mother shunted him off to a relative when he was a toddler because she took a new husband and wanted him out of the way. He grew up to be, shall we say, interesting in terms of personality and demeanour, but the world as we know it today owes his genius a great debt. Some kind and non-inflated ego recognized what he had to offer and saw to it that he was properly developed.
By way of a brief summary, we used what we called the "sandwich" technique in our teaching methods courses in my military days. Use the velvet first, then the crunch, and finish the counselling session with more velvet. It leaves the intended target with a positive feeling, a goal to strive for, and a desire to continue to pursue the passtime, work, or education.
Anyone reading this who had an unhappy childhood where they were not loved, were beaten down, criticized relentlessly, must know that there is a much better way to treat human beings than merely being critical. (No, my childhood was fine.)
That's my .
Poppa_Zit wrote: Not to beleaguer the Imus thing, but you didn't hear his words in context. If you listen to the tape (original context, can be found with a search), you'll see it wasn't meant to be mean at all. He and his cohorts were doing schtick as usual on that show, and this time it turned out to be a horribly failed attempt at edgy humor.If you've ever done live radio or TV or spoken to a large group, you'd know how easy it is to make a mistake in judgment. One you'd like to pull back one second later, but can't.On a board like this, or when writing for print, you have time to proofread, reconsider and edit before hitting the send key. Not so in radio.
Not to beleaguer the Imus thing, but you didn't hear his words in context. If you listen to the tape (original context, can be found with a search), you'll see it wasn't meant to be mean at all. He and his cohorts were doing schtick as usual on that show, and this time it turned out to be a horribly failed attempt at edgy humor.
If you've ever done live radio or TV or spoken to a large group, you'd know how easy it is to make a mistake in judgment. One you'd like to pull back one second later, but can't.
On a board like this, or when writing for print, you have time to proofread, reconsider and edit before hitting the send key. Not so in radio.
Understood, Poppa Zit. But they who live by the s(word) die by the s(word). Or, as one much brighter than I put, it, "The pen is mightier than the sword." If you make your living using words, you'd better be darned careful with how you use them. As I said, he was incautious, but even if the didn't mean them the way they sounded, they were as injurious as if he had accidentally mowed over an old lady at a crosswalk.
And I feel you are most correct that there is therefore little excuse to transmit intemperate words on this forum. Each of us has the choice to post what is hastily written or to think about it for a bit longer. Often time has a way of showing us that we have missed something important.
As my Dad is fond of saying, "Sin in haste; repent at leisure."
And no to place myself above horrible gaffs, there are a number of them over the years that actually, honestly, make me wince to this day. They were beauts, lemme tell ya.
On the first day of my on-line course in Leadership & Ethics, I post a set of rules for our discussions. One of them is this suggestion:
"Before you click on the reply button, think a bit more about what you have written. Cross, uninformed, or prickly words will often be fed back to you, and those prickles can be quite unpalatable. I know because I have had one or two good flossings in my time." This admission should in no way be construed as license or an allowance to be careless...or incautious, even once in a while. Two plus two doesn't make five even once.
I appreciate this dialogue...very much.
I was thinking this modern society has gone way beyond simple dirty words learned in grade school. I recall the silence in heaven or at least the household when I got angry over a tidbit and fired a word. Punishment was swift and effective.
Today there isnt much you can do about the verbal pollution in the workplace. The best Ive seen would be on a packed Greyhound bus where an Elder who is tired of the dirty language will loom over the kiddies and shame them into silence for 200 miles with a few simple and nice sentences starting with ... listen you whips, You are young enough to be my grandchildren and I cannot accept your bad words. Ive been 70+ years in life and we dont talk that way on this bus.
The converstation was short, one way only with simple replies of yes sir, no sir etc. Amazing how young people recall English Class from Public education when put into the corner about something bad.
Amazing to watch when problems are solved properly. As for myself I keep big mouth shut at work when necessary. Especially when new employees are around and not yet much out of college. It really makes for a happy workplace.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Sorry you're so easily offended.
Sorry you're so easily offended.
I am not opposed to "edgy humor" or even "dirty jokes", if told in the proper forum (pun intended). That was one of the points I made in my first post ... venue affects everything. Sure, shock jocks push the envelope with their humor, but what you seem reluctant to acknowledge is that there actually is an "envelope", and that the envelope on the public airwaves has a finite boundary. Don Imus didn't get fired for doing what he was paid to do. He was fired for going way beyond the bounds of propriety. Keep in mind that we are talking about public airways which are owned by all the people, not just the "edgy" ones. The rules of behavior on the public airwaves are subject to regulation by the FCC which ultimately derives its authority from the people through Congress.
And, Imus himself has acknowledged that his comment that led to his firing last year was "was completely inappropriate" and "thoughtless and stupid". By all accounts he appears sincere when he says the experience has turned his life around, and he has pledged never to make hurtful comments like that again.
Now where's the logic in that?
CShaveRR wrote: I hope I don't come across as one of the know-it-alls that Jim is upset over. I have my share of specialty areas, but to claim that I know more than anyone else about such things is ludicrous--there's always something to be learned.
I hope I don't come across as one of the know-it-alls that Jim is upset over. I have my share of specialty areas, but to claim that I know more than anyone else about such things is ludicrous--there's always something to be learned.
Carl, there is a really big difference in my mind between a "know it all" and someone who is close to "knowing it all" on a certain subject they are conversing about. I respect your views on the subject of railroading, especially related to a certain large road since you are directly associated with that road and can thus speak with virtually complete authority on the subject, where others on forums in general will come across as "know it alls" on virtually every subject they touch.
Bucyrus wrote:... Instead, it leaves the definition up to the one who claims to be offended. ...
I agree that this is true and that it is also bad logic. When I hear the words that Don Imus spoke, I think of a female dressed provocatively with unkempt hair, typically in braids or dreads. Race, ethnicity, etc. never come into play in my vision. Sure I envision a white girl, but I attribute that to the fact that white women make up over half of the females I've seen in my lifetime.
The issue that burns me deep down, though, is the rampant hypocrisy. If that had ben 50cent and not Don Imus, you would have never heard about it. If it had been one of the members of the team, you would have never heard about it. It is just another example of a person being told what he really meant by people who have no clue what he really meant and only want to further their own agenda at his expense. And that's how I tie it back to this forum.
selector wrote: ...It [PC] is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible.
...It [PC] is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible.
selector,
When I mentioned that PC goes deeper and enters highly controversial areas, the controversy is that not everybody agrees that the ideas behind PC are highly defensible. I, for instance, believe many of those ideas are absolutely hideous. On the very surface, PC is about offending people, but it is also a road that leads to tyranny. Even the part about offending people is highly suspect because it implies a right not to be offended, and yet, it offers no definition of what constitutes offence. Instead, it leaves the definition up to the one who claims to be offended. This empowers people to claim redress under the doctrine of PC merely by claiming to be offended. And their claim cannot be challenged because its only test is the making of the claim.
edw wrote: Here is a suggestion for you Poppa_Zit. Try this as a little sociological experiment, and maybe you will gain a better understanding of the difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness. When you go into work tomorrow, mention to your boss that you think his wife looks like a nappy-headed **. If your boss happens to be a woman, then make the same comment to her directly. To validate the results of this experiment, run the same experiment over again with your own wife, mother or sister.Oh, and if for some strange reason your test subjects don't react the way you expect, you can always use the following rationalizations in your defense (all taken from your various posts): Your comment wasn't meant to be mean at all.It was just a failed attempt at edgy humor.Their negative reaction is just "PC run amok".They should stop extending feelers in every direction looking for something that offends them. Please report back to us as to how the experiment turns out. If your assessment of American sensibilities is correct, I'm sure everyone will have a good laugh over it.
Here is a suggestion for you Poppa_Zit. Try this as a little sociological experiment, and maybe you will gain a better understanding of the difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness.
When you go into work tomorrow, mention to your boss that you think his wife looks like a nappy-headed **.
If your boss happens to be a woman, then make the same comment to her directly.
To validate the results of this experiment, run the same experiment over again with your own wife, mother or sister.
Oh, and if for some strange reason your test subjects don't react the way you expect, you can always use the following rationalizations in your defense (all taken from your various posts):
Please report back to us as to how the experiment turns out. If your assessment of American sensibilities is correct, I'm sure everyone will have a good laugh over it.
Whoops, edw. Your premise for this experiment is totally flawed. I know the situational difference between political correctness, edgy humor and downright meanness -- and apparently you do not.
What you offer are NOT valid comparisions. None of your examples consist of a form of entertainment that people make a conscious choice to listen -- or not listen. Just like Howard Stern, Lenny Bruce, or anyone else who dances along the edge. Consider Don Rickles packed 'em in for years in Vegas and made a fortune as -- an insult comic, insulting members of the audience and making them laugh. Because that's the behavior they expected when they showed up and paid their money.
Imus was on the air for over 39 years and dominated most radio markets he was in. He was most popular in major metro areas like New York where the standards for what is considered patently offensive are much lower than in rural areas. Look it up.
His listeners voluntarily tuned in for almost four decades because they enjoyed his edgy sense of humor. They knew what they were getting when they turned on their radio, and they did so because they enjoyed Imus' act. He made a mistake, and paid for it. What's so difficult to understand about the difference in his situation and the one you propose?
Making statements like you propose to people who don't request such statements or expect them -- like your boss, sister, mother or any other person -- is not that same as what Imus was paid to do. There's a time and a place for everything. You wouldn't pop open a beer in church, would you, but that how money is made at church picnics. We all laugh at dirty jokes, but not told at the dinner table with children present.
selector wrote: Don Imus used incautious language, but his terms revealed something about him. It was this ogre waiting to get out that drew the horrored looks from so many people. Like many talking heads in the media, and like me, they have underlying biases that come out just before we can get our fingers up to our lips to stop them. Too bad...so sad. Into the corner with you.Had Don Imus used those very words here, and I saw them....into the corner he'd go.Skill-testing question: why would he have been sent to the corner on Kalmbach's forums for using his choice of words in a post?Hint: it's in the rules.-Crandell
Don Imus used incautious language, but his terms revealed something about him. It was this ogre waiting to get out that drew the horrored looks from so many people. Like many talking heads in the media, and like me, they have underlying biases that come out just before we can get our fingers up to our lips to stop them. Too bad...so sad. Into the corner with you.
Had Don Imus used those very words here, and I saw them....into the corner he'd go.
Skill-testing question: why would he have been sent to the corner on Kalmbach's forums for using his choice of words in a post?
Hint: it's in the rules.
selector wrote: bucyrus, PC is an attempt to take the issue of irrelevance out of human interaction. It is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible. It surely can't be a bad thing to want to discourage generalizations and other fallacies that contribute nothing to the resolution of tangible issues.If I had my way, everyone would get a course in elementary logic before they left high school. And have to pass a standardized test. Only then could they get a computer. Okay, I'm being facetious.
bucyrus, PC is an attempt to take the issue of irrelevance out of human interaction. It is an attempt to get people to conform to a norm of conduct, to be sure, but the values behind that norm are highly defensible. It surely can't be a bad thing to want to discourage generalizations and other fallacies that contribute nothing to the resolution of tangible issues.
If I had my way, everyone would get a course in elementary logic before they left high school. And have to pass a standardized test. Only then could they get a computer.
Okay, I'm being facetious.
Kind of a bummer because that might help things!
Dan
Selector, I'll take the hint and refrain from a point-by-point response to Poppa_Zit's previous post. Allow me to make one comment, however. Poppa_Zit states that what Don Imus said didn't affect him, or most Americans, one whit. While I can't speak for most Americans, I will say that Imus's hurtful remarks certainly affected me. Insulting those young Rutgers women in that way, just to get a cheap laugh at their expense, both angered and saddened me. And, I'm willing to bet that my reaction was shared by many other Americans, as well.
One thing about P.C. is that it means different things to different people. One of the most common meanings is a societal taboo against racial or gender stereotyping. There is nothing unreasonable about that, but PC goes a lot deeper where it becomes intensely controversial. The Imus case is a classic example of violating PC at that surface level. But going deeper, PC is ultimately a doctrine of rules about what you say and even what you think. These rules cover a wide range of human activity. They are mostly enforced by society's ability to inflict punishment on individuals, but the ones who push PC would like nothing better than to make PC compliance the law.
Once you understand the rules of the doctrine, you can readily differentiate people who comply with PC with those who do not.
PC always promotes itself under the banner of fairness, and that includes not offending anyone, not even the most thin-skinned. So PC abhors arguments or anything resembling conflict or competition. It is as if it seeks to stifle those characteristics out of society because they foster spirited individuals who may ultimately challenge PC doctrine itself.
Whatever you think constitutes political correctness, you can really get your mind mangled by studying the Wikipedia explanation of the term. In my personal opinion, I think they are muddying up the water a little. I had no idea it was so hard to pin down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
At this point, a vigilant moderator, or one who happened to stumble across this thread on her way to something else, would politely ask everyone to not get distracted by the Don Imus thing, but to continue to develop the discussion along the lines of what is good for the trains.com set of fora. Or, maybe just this one.
And, in case it bears repeating, calling someone "princess", "moron", or anything other than their known name or user name, has nothing to do with correctness or politics. It is out of place in politics and out of place here. It is also contrary to the rules, or at least their intent, to attribute characteristics to a person that are not going to be universally accepted by all members and the staff at Kalmbach (i.e., it's just opinion). Examples would be "bullheaded", "stubborn", "mule", "stupid", "pigheaded", "needs to get out more", and other attempts to exhalt one's own position at the expense of another. Nothing political about that kind of talk at all...it's personal, pure and simple. And combative.
P.S.- thanks for the words of encouragement from those who have offered them. They go a long way.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.